.

[eyeball]

Andrew Coyne's take:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-to-uncover-or-not-to-uncover-why-the-niqab-issue-is-ridiculous

The issue is clouded by association with the legitimate threat posed by Islamist terrorism, and clouded further by the unwillingness of some to concede it is a threat, or a threat of a particular severity, or a threat whose roots lie in extremist Islam.

That's just wrong. Nobody on the left has said terrorism isn't a threat.

What about the unwillingness of so many to accept that a lot of Islamic extremist's roots are firmly planted in western, mostly right-wing policies, attitudes and of course outright pig-headed stupidity towards Islamic countries? In terms of severity these are, always have been and will likely remain, the far bigger threat.

[Black Dog]

That's just wrong. Nobody on the left has said terrorism isn't a threat.

What about the unwillingness of so many to accept that a lot of Islamic extremist's roots are firmly planted in western, mostly right-wing policies, attitudes and of course outright pig-headed stupidity towards Islamic countries? In terms of severity these are, always have been and will likely remain, the far bigger threat.

The threat, in this case, remains the threat of Islamic extremism. All your quibbling with is the motivation.

[eyeball]

It's a pretty big and fundamental quibble.

People who wish to ban the niqab often see the issue as being of a piece with the issue of terrorism, and see the unwillingness of others to ban the niqab as being born of a more general blindness to the threat of Islamist terrorism.

As I said earlier it's been a fairly pathetic election campaign. In light of the government's accusations that the opposition is with the terrorists I expected the GWOT to be an issue explored a little more directly and a little more deeply than it has been.

The Niqab issue nicely veils the unspeakable.

[Black Dog]

It's a pretty big and fundamental quibble.

Not really. If one "accept(s) that a lot of Islamic extremist's roots are firmly planted in western, mostly right-wing policies, attitudes and of course outright pig-headed stupidity towards Islamic countries" that doesn't make the threat any less. There's no getting the toothpaste back into the tube now.

[Black Dog]

Funny thing is I never see the Conservatives talking about it. It's always being brought up by NDP supporters in order to show how inclusive they are, and how evil the Conservatives are.

I can't tell if this is bad timing or GREAT timing:

Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre said Thursday he would not rule out imposing restrictions on face coverings in the federal public service.

Speaking at a press conference on an open letter Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has written to the federal public service about the future of their pension plans and sick leave benefits, Poilievre would only say that any decision on a possible ban on bureaucrats wearing the niqab or other face coverings on the job would be “down the road.”

“What I can tell you is our existing policy, which is that it is completely reasonable to have someone show their face when giving the oath of citizenship. I have been to citizenship ceremonies where people have attended wearing a face covering, and I have witnessed them remove those face coverings, and I think that is entirely reasonable,” he said at a press conference in Ottawa.

link

[angrypenguin]

I can't tell if this is bad timing or GREAT timing:

link

I don't get your point. I read that and went....ehh? meh?

[eyeball]

Not really. If one "accept(s) that a lot of Islamic extremist's roots are firmly planted in western, mostly right-wing policies, attitudes and of course outright pig-headed stupidity towards Islamic countries" that doesn't make the threat any less. There's no getting the toothpaste back into the tube now.

Not accepting this is by far the greater threat.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not accepting this is by far the greater threat.

Nope....still waiting for similar "blowback" from First Nations, Haiti, Chile, Serbia, Vietnam, etc. etc.

Maybe there are magic powers in a niqab ?

[eyeball]

Maybe, but I think it's just that Islam places a high premium on vengeance is all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe, but I think it's just that Islam places a high premium on vengeance is all.

Sorry, no special deals for Islam in Canada, but the Protestants and Catholics do get a special denomination deal in several provinces. Maybe that's why it was OK for nuns to wear habits and carry a big stick.

[eyeball]

Maybe.

[Hudson Jones]

It's obvious that Harper is using this to gain points in Quebec. To strip the NDP from support.

It pisses me off that Harper is spending millions of our tax money to appeal a decision that has already been made by two courts. A decision that is unwinnable.

[On Guard for Thee]

Which boils down to he's buying his votes with our money.

[cybercoma]

So today in Montreal teens attacked a pregnant Muslim woman, knocking her down and ripping off her niqab. http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/09/30/une-femme-voilee-et-enceinte-agressee-par-deux-ados

I think people are confused about who should be afraid here.

[Black Dog]

Not accepting this is by far the greater threat.

Accepting it or not has no bearing on world events.

[eyeball]

You don't count perpetuating things as having much bearing? Whatever you say.

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't count perpetuating things as having much bearing? Whatever you say.

So there should be special consideration for Muslim nations....but to hell with Haiti ?

[Black Dog]

You don't count perpetuating things as having much bearing? Whatever you say.

Think of it like climate change: even if all carbon emissions stopped tomorrow, we'd probably still be looking at an increase in global temperatures because of all the carbon that's already been released. So even if the west stopped doing whatever you think they are doing to turn ordinary well adjusted Muslims into violent fanatics, there's still a current violent fanatic problem that no policy pivot can solve. And that's all without even considering the fact that, regardless of the scenario, the actual physical threat is violent Muslim extremists.

[eyeball]

I'm pretty sure that went without saying over ten years ago. I was just hoping some rational thinking on our part would have also started to prevail by now but apparently not.

And that's all without even considering the fact that, regardless of the scenario, the actual physical threat is violent Muslim extremists.

Which AFAIC still pale in comparison to the threat of our stupidity.

[Black Dog]

Which AFAIC still pale in comparison to the threat of our stupidity.

The stupidity which you say...is causing Muslim extremism, right?

[eyeball]

Contributing to it.

[Argus]

I can't tell if this is bad timing or GREAT timing:

It actually supports what I said. Poilievre was meeting with reporters about Harper's letter to public servants. Nothing to do with Niquabs.

He was asked by a reporter about the niquab. He was asked that since Quebec is about to ban the wearing of it by public servants Ottawa should do the same. Poliievre tried to talk around it since, obviously, there is no such plan, but the reporter came back with a followup wanting a specific answer. Again, Poliievre committed to nothing, using politician words "After a brief pause, Poilievre said, "Well, you'll have to wait until we're down the road to find out what's down the road, but what I can tell you today is that this is the message that I have to share with you."

The CBC report, of course, says "Conservatives Stop Short of ruling out ban on Niquabs in public service". But really, how could Polievre rule something like that out when it wouldn't be his decision?

This is a non story. It's the Left, once again, bringing this up in order to incite their rabble.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-public-servants-niqab-1.3252120

[Black Dog]

It actually supports what I said. Poilievre was meeting with reporters about Harper's letter to public servants. Nothing to do with Niquabs.

He was asked by a reporter about the niquab. He was asked that since Quebec is about to ban the wearing of it by public servants Ottawa should do the same. Poliievre tried to talk around it since, obviously, there is no such plan, but the reporter came back with a followup wanting a specific answer. Again, Poliievre committed to nothing, using politician words "After a brief pause, Poilievre said, "Well, you'll have to wait until we're down the road to find out what's down the road, but what I can tell you today is that this is the message that I have to share with you."

The CBC report, of course, says "Conservatives Stop Short of ruling out ban on Niquabs in public service". But really, how could Polievre rule something like that out when it wouldn't be his decision?

This is a non story. It's the Left, once again, bringing this up in order to incite their rabble.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-public-servants-niqab-1.3252120

You're being completely disingenuous on this, still.

There's plenty of ways to handle and deflect something like this if they wanted to. But rather than "talk around it" as you say, PP was only too happy to trot out the CPC key messages on this

"What I can tell you is that our existing policy … is that it is completely reasonable to ask someone to show their face while their giving an oath of citizenship," Poilievre said in response to Siekierski's question. "It is completely reasonable to ask someone to show their face while they're giving an oath of citizenship.

"I have been at citizenship ceremonies where people have attended wearing a face covering, and I have witnessed them remove those face coverings. And I think that's entirely reasonable."

He said the oath is a "sacred moment of citizenship and loyalty to country," which is also why it must be taken in person.

So, to recap, PP could have said "It's not on our radar at this time" and left it at that. He could have mentioned that it's not his call. In short: there's plenty of ways for someone to not talk about it if they don't want to talk about it, which you'd think if this is really about leftist rabble rousing as you say, the conservatives would be happy to do. But they want this issue on the radar as much as anyone else.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

Aw man, why won't the left leave divisive cultural issues alone and focus on real problems like the CPC does?

A re-elected Conservative Government will remain committed to ending barbaric cultural practices overseas and in Canada through a multifaceted commitment:

We will establish a new targeted program to prevent child and forced marriage in the world’s conflict zones, particularly among refugee girls who have been displaced by war and who are at risk of forced marriage. The program will cost $12 million over 4 years and the first year of funding will be targeted at preventing child and forced marriage among girls impacted by the conflict in Iraq and Syria.

An RCMP tip line will be established that citizens and victims can call with information about incidents of barbaric cultural practices in Canada or to notify authorities that a child or woman is at risk of being victimized.

RCMP integrated units will also be created in Canada’s major cities – including Calgary, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver – to enforce the changes made to Canadian laws under the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act and to support victims. This is addition to a new $8 million commitment to establish integrated RCMP anti-human trafficking teams in those same cities[1].

But I'm sure there's no way a "snitch on your swarthy neighbours" program could ever get abused, eh wot?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Black Dog

[dialamah]

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

Gosh, I wonder exactly what that act defines as 'Barbaric Cultural Practices'. Child marriages, clitoral removal, death by stoning (or any other means) - that all would make sense. But those were already illegal in Canada, so why would another law be needed? What else not covered in our already existing laws is in this legislation? Or is it just an unnecessary law created for optics?

But I'm sure there's no way a "snitch on your swarthy neighbours" program could ever get abused, eh wot?

I'm thinking somebody has already got that number on speed-dial.